Welcome to the LSAT Lab RU-vid channel. This new channel is the place to learn How to Master the LSAT. Our lessons break down each topic of the LSAT into a process that you can repeat on your own. Subscribe to the channel and click the bell to get our newest lessons every week.
When you're ready to put your learning into action, check out the powerful LSAT preparation tools at lsatlab.com.
For June 2007 s3 q22, I’m confused about the last line of the conditional reasoning.. (slash means negation) I got the following: only if /sales decrease -> /decrease profits I don’t understand how the last line of the stimulus translates to sales decrease -> decrease profits
For the Australian wool question: Answer C does not specify wool, it only says "certain products"? We would be making an assumption if we were to assign wool to that phrasing? Also- how is the scope of answer C any different than that of answer D, which you said was 'half scope'?
Thank you very much for these. I am doing a quite expensive prep course and have a prep book and this honestly clicked more than the reading comp explanations I got in either.
I have read through textbooks, online forums, and used several online tools such as law hub and kahn academy to study logical reasoning and I wasn't able to wrap my head around conditional logic until I watched this video. Thank you SO MUCH for making this video, it was extremely helpful!
I was going over the Elemental Prep loophole book (pg 128 if interested) and was on this topic regarding either/or statements, ie, either A or B will happen. The book states to handle this as not A --> B with a contrapositive of not B --> A. But it makes more complete logical sense to me that this would be a biconditional of A<-->not B with its contrapositive being not A <--> B. Using a biconditional, you more fully cover all cases... not just if you don't have a thing then it's the other thing but also if you have a thing then you don't have the other thing. Can someone explain to me why I'm wrong?
When you say that this is always the wrong answer, what does that mean? Does it mean that this is an answer that we should not select, or do you mean that it is a flawed and so we should select it for flawed questions?
I don't care about the logic makeup. The question about conscious beliefs is bullshit wording. There's nothing to suggest that you can't focus on both the unconscious and conscious beliefs. If you focus on the conscious beliefs, it is an effective treatment because it focuses on the conscious control. This is a perfect example of why this test is fucking stupid. As for B, just because it makes it more difficult for the psychotherapy to be effective, does not make the psychotherapy inherently more effective or ineffective than any other. Stupid question with a stupid answer.
Gavin 'can' participate, which implies that there is another option. In stimulus, it is 'invariable' that they will be acquainted- so there is no other option. The conclusion is too strong in D, we cannot conclude he MUST be in the plan
I just happened to come across this video after looking up Flaw questions and I am only 3 minutes in. This video is hilarious and I am loving this style.
This channel is AMAZING. I was feeling discouraged during some recent MSS drills and went looking for resources I could use to supplement my 7Sage lessons and I found it!! Thank you for thinking of us future law students in this way!
Hi Patrick! I found this series so helpful for studying RC. Are there any more episodes coming out on RU-vid or lesson topics that should be researched about?
For 28:49 it didn't seem like the variables listed were said to contribute to ethnic consciousness? It seemed as if it just stated such as "patterns of bilin..." then said AND the variations in ethnic consciousness. It didn't appear as if the previously listed stated variables were said to contribute to ethnic consciousness. Is there something I'm not seeing, so far inference questions seem to be the brick wall I'm running into :( I love the lessons though, they're incredibly informative and helpful.
On 15:50 answer choice A says ".... are influential thinkers". How can we derive the sentence "central to this type of critique..." to imply "influential thinkers. That part didn't click on me, is there any way to simplify the statement? I see how the rest of the sentences connect to answer choice A but i's the "influential thinkers" portion that messed me up.
I hate these questions. They have cause me so many breakdowns. I’ve watched and read everything and done so many practice questions and test and still don’t understand it. Does that mean I just can’t understand them ever? I’m losing hope.
26:41 There is the term " beneficial native plant" that made me hesitate to pick C. We have beneficial fungi, but no " beneficial native plants." I picked D as a result of this term switch. Of course "all types" is too strong but the alternative is a term that does not exist in the passage. Any suggestions? Thanks! What a wonderful video this is!!
